Mary Gets Quite Contrary
Radley Balko | December 5, 2008, 9:18am
Mary Beth Buchanan, who makes a strong case for the title of worst U.S. attorney in the country, says she won’t abide by the customary practice of all U.S. attorneys submitting their resignations with the swearing in of a new administration.
“It doesn’t serve justice for all the U.S. attorneys to submit their resignations all at one time,” she said yesterday.
U.S. attorneys serve at the discretion of the president and may be hired and fired at will, although their appointments must be confirmed by the Senate. When a new president is elected, U.S. attorneys of both parties generally tender their resignations.
Instead, the Republican said she plans to continue her work in the Western District of Pennsylvania. More than that, she said she would consider working in the Obama administration. She would not discuss what her future might hold beyond the U.S. attorney’s office.
“I am open to considering further service to the United States,” Ms. Buchanan said.
It was Buchanan, you might remember, who prosecuted Tommy Chong for selling glass-blown bongs over the Internet. Soon after then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that fighting porn would be a priority during his tenure, Buchanan brought the first federal obscenity case in 20 years, against porn producer Extreme Associates. She also prosecuted Karen Fletcher, believed to be the first person convicted on federal obscenity charges for distributing written material. Despite an embarassing defeat in court, Buchanan is also still pursuing charges against Pennsylvania medical examiner Dr. Cyril Wecht, a case so reeking in political opportunism that former Bush 41 Attorney General Dick Thornburgh agreed to represent Wecht, and has since publicly accused Buchanan of using her office for baseless, partisan prosecutions of Democrats.
I’ve written pretty extensively of what I think is one of Buchanan’s most outrageous cases. It’s her prosecution of Dr. Bernard Rottschaefer, a Pennsylvania physician Buchanan put in prison for allegedly writing Oxy prescriptions in exchange for sex. Since Rottschaeffer’s conviction, Buchanan’s case has fallen to pieces, as each of the five witnesses who testified to getting illegal prescriptions from Rottschaeffer have since been shown to have lied. Buchanan refuses to reopen the case. She also refuses to pursue perjury charges against her star witness, Jennifer Riggle, who explicitly conceded in letters to her boyfriend that she lied on the witness stand.
Buchanan has made no secret of her ambition for elected office. During her tenure as a federal prosecutor she has actively sought out high-profile, often dubious cases to win favor with her superiors in the Bush administration. It’s mostly worked. She’s been promoted twice. But it also makes it extremely unlikely she’d have a place in an Obama administration.
Buchanan isn’t delusional. She’s calculating. My guess is that this is a stunt to force Obama to fire her, at which point she’ll make a public stink, play the martyr, then attempt to parlay the resulting controversy into a run for the Senate, or perhaps for governor of Pennsylvania.
Mad Max | December 5, 2008, 10:36am | #
A politically-ambitious US Attorney with a history of filing dubious prosecutions? What could go wrong?
In fairness, I think we need to look at the root causes of the problem here - the fact that there is an independent prosecutor's office with a power-base separate from the police. This is bogus. Police and prosecutors are part of the executive branch - one should be subordinate to the other.
Specifically, prosecutors should be subordinate to the police - even better, the police can get private lawyers to prosecute their cases. A lawyer representing a police department (or the FBI, DEA, etc) should have the same ethical obligations as a lawyer representing a private party - comply with discovery obligations, don't tell the court or jury things which you know to be false, etc.
If prosecutions are in the name of the police ("FBI v. Bob Smith"), maybe we could drop the Anglophiliac practice of having prosecutions brought in the name of the sovereign - "The United States of America v. Bob Smith." It's the judge and jury (especially the latter) who represent the sovereign in a criminal prosecution - describing the sovereign public as the plaintiff in a criminal case gives the prosecution an undeserved moral boost.
Autonomous prosecutors aren't a check on police abuses, but are an *independent source* of abuses. If you've gotten on the wrong side of some prosecutor, or if you are a convenient stepping-stone for their political ambition, then watch out!
Look at the kind of prosecutors who use their posititions to get into higher office - Rudy Ghouliani; Eliot Swallows, I mean Spitzer; and the entire wretched crew.
Let the various police departments (federal, state and local) be responsible for deciding whom to charge with crimes, give the cops and the defendant good lawyers, and leave it at that. I would also support reinstating the old practice of private criminal prosecutions, so that it's not up to the executive to decide which crimes deserve to get prosecuted and which crimes should be ignored.
James | December 5, 2008, 12:31pm | #
John,
I did not post a link to the Chong case, I posted a link to the Rottschaefer case. It is true that Dr. Rottschaefer was found guilty, but after trial it was uncovered that all prosecution witnesses lied, the U.S. Attorney's office concealed deals with the prosecution witnesses (and pretty much pushed the witnesses to commit perjury), and evidence proving all the complaining witnesses who testified in court that they did not have the ailments in question necessary for the medications was oddly not released to the defense team.
Right now, the small town doctor, Bernard Rottschaefer, is living the last years of his life in a federal jail because U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan's office put on perjured testimony and failed to uncover evidence that proved he is innocent.
As for the prosecution witnesses, they are still receiving the same medications (although in stronger dosages) for the same ailments that Dr. Rottschaefer prescribed for.
Dr. Rottschaefer prescribed a legal medication to treat medical ailments. In response, he was railroaded into jail and slandered by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan who decided to spread sex allegations charges in her media statements that she apparently knew were false.
So go ahead, tell me "She was just doing her job."
If this individual, Buchanan, cared at all about justice, she would have long ago pushed for a new trial for Dr. Rottschaefer, revoked the deals she made with her drug dealing prosecution witnesses, tried or at least investigated the prosecution witnesses for perjury, etc.
Instead, Buchanan has stonewalled and changed her argument of the case repeatedly in order to maintain the conviction and not look like an ass.
So once again, I say simply, this person is not a good example to tout out there as "why was she fired?".
James | December 5, 2008, 4:07pm | #
kwais
She most certainly is taking an extremely liberal view of the law and in some cases such as Dr. Rottschaefer's, she appears to have broken the law.
Let's go through a few cases:
Dr. Cyril Wecht - Charged with misusing public resources for personal gain. So you are thinking bribes, kickbacks, or he is outright stealing cash. Nope, Cyril Wecht currently stands accused of $200 in misbilling to his private clients in which he utilized a county fax. Wecht and the Prosecution spearheaded by Buchanan have spent millions arguing over $200 on over $7 million annually of Wecht's billings. Buchanan actually wants Wecht in jail, so word to everyone balance your checkbook.
There is Daniel Zehr. Charged with violating the Patriot Act. Ok, you are thinking this guy is bad...real bad. May be a terrorist or something. Nope, he is an Amish man who has lived in the US with his American wide and children who crossed back over to Canada to attend his father's funeral. When Zehr traveled back into the U.S., he was held for not having a photo passport. Zehr's religious sect does not permit them to have pictures taken. What does Buchanan do? Grant this guy an exception/pass which she could do...nope she has him deported for being a national security threat.
Then there are the two vets that lied about their ranks at the VA. This is a situation where your grandfather lies and says he won WWII singlehandedly. Buchanan utilizes a law meant to prevent people from impersonating law enforcement and military personal to steal money to prosecute these two guys criminally.
There is Sheriff DeFazio. Another great example. After Buchanan utilized the power of the prosecutor's office to threaten the sheriff that he could lose his pension, he plead guilty. You think he did something terrible. Well, it appears he asked his staff to buy charity raffle tickets. Buchanan felt he utilized undue pressure. So if your boss asks you to give to charity, call Buchanan.
She is a wackjob. Plain and simple.
Additionally, please read the article Radley links to about Rottschaefer.
Potted Plant | December 5, 2008, 5:11pm | #
I don't know about the laws permitting/prohibiting the firing of US Attorneys. But here's how employment law in general works:
In most situations, employees are employed "at-will," meaning that they can be fired for any reason (bad or good), or no reason at all. They can't be fired, however, in breach of a contract or in violation of certain statutes (such as, for example, anti-discrimination statutes).
The practical effect of the "at-will" status of the employee is to shift the burden of proof from the employer (which would have to establish "just cause" if the employment weren't at-will) to the employee.
For example, an employer can fire an "at-will" employee without explanation. If the employee is black and challenges the discharge in court, the employer probably needs to give a rational explanation, such as poor performance, which is a legitimate reason for the decision.
Still, even if that's a legitimate reason, the discharge can be illegal if it can be proven that the employee's race was a "motivating factor" in the decision. One way to prove that would be to show that white employees with similar or worse performace records were not fired.
In that circumstance, the employer would have had a legitimate reason to fire an at-will employee, but still would have been guilty of violating the law against racial discrimination in employment.
I'm guessing that's how it works here with the US Attorneys. The President can generally do what he wants with respect to them, but if it can be proven that he acted for unlawful reasons (whatever they might be), then he can be held to account.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
